The Environmentalism Thread - Philosophy and Politics

Greeting Soapbox, my purpose for this thread to create a place to discuss the environmentalism in its various forms, applying it to policy, and the politics that surrounds it. I hope we can use this thread to discuss the many topics that surface when environmentalist philosophy rubs up against policy, as well as a place to air our grievances when we think environmentalist policy has gone too far. I encourage people from all walks of life to have their say these topics, and I hope we can respect disagreements.

Endangered species and the endangered species act are always points of contention against environmentalism. Many people see it as the government protecting some animal at the expense of their property rights, their ability to utilize resources, and the economy in general. Federal and State endangered species laws allow the respective governments to regulate the "taking" and listed species, and more, the habitats they require to survive.

I'll start off by saying that I am sympathetic to people who are worried about their property rights, especially when people with already purchased and inhabited property has to deal with newly listed species.

From the second article:

Quote:

With his GPS, the gopher expert put together a gopher map that cost Howell $2,700. And Howell got a plan that told him to turn three of his five acres into a gopher sanctuary.

I am not sure what specifically powers are granted to the State of Washington to compel someone to do this (assuming it is true), but I certainly disagree with it, and not totally on the grounds of "people should do whatever the hell they want on their property". My biggest complaint is that the government is compelling a layperson to act in a field that requires expertise, and that it is forcing a person to spend their time and money on a project that should be the responsibility of the government. If people decide it is in the government's interest to protect endangered species and habitat (and I do strongly believe it is in the government's interest), it should be the government footing the bill and the manpower to protect said species and habitats. I don't believe that landowners should be grudgingly impressed by the government to do its work. The government should use other avenues of protection, whether it be buying the land for protection, or a contract for not developing the land for tax benefits, or some other means.

Priority disagreement between environmentalist groups

First article on disputes between local environmentalists vs. large nationwide environmentalist groups over solar arrays in the desert southwest

Next link is to a blog, but it shows an interesting conflict between different people with different priorities on protecting the environment. I think it also is interesting because the same complex of "if I disagree with someone on one thing, I have to disagree with them on everything" has developed too. The blog mainly has to do with combating government and volunteer based habitat restorations/reconstructions, and the use of herbicides.

While environmentalists have always fought against pollution, climate change has shifted much of the fight against pollution from effects on local ecosystems to fighting emissions at regional and global scales. It isn't surprising that large scale initiatives will begin to conflict with more localized ones. This can especially be seen with the desires for the wind and solar energy technologies that require a large amount of land to generate the necessary power. With respect to the LA times article, I understand both sides of the issue. Solar and wind are never going to get a chance to prove or disprove their power generation abilities if they aren't built, but at what amount of land usage does solar/wind start causing more damage than it is trying stop? The compromise I would find, is that some land is going to need to be developed so developing solar/wind on land and habitats that are most abundant can be done, with the promise that is only can develop on so much land. Also I am going to admit that I am totally ignoring the part about the local group buying the land and donating it to the government, and then the government turning around discussing development of it. That is quite shitty of our government.

The Million Trees blog to me has an interesting series of posts. I am not going to say the webmaster is completely wrong. There are good points made, and I haven't investigated the matters that are discussed thoroughly, but I will say that the webmaster's disdain for pesticide/herbicide has seemingly blinded him/her to what problems conservation biology is trying to combat. The blog almost seems to be so environmental its bordering on anti-environmentalism. The biology around invasive species isn't crystal clear, and "invasiveness" isn't for even a single organism isn't consistent throughout ecosystems or regions. Arguing against restoration on the ground that the world is always changing, or that it is just to preserve everything the way it is, is not actually arguing against the goals of conservation. Conservation and restoration projects are based on fighting loss of species and habitats. Arguing that it is about trying to keep things static is a straw man. This isn't to say that their are people and projects who aren't going about it correctly and who are wasting public and private funding, but that doesn't actually weaken the science behind it.

I hope these two topics can kick off discussion, and if they don't feel free to post your own!